Architecture as an Extension to Daily Routines
"At its most basic, the city is a collection of things in space through which people wander during the course of their daily routines."
"The present city must be defined as a place of continuous creation."
"To construct a communicating city means to provide spaces within buildings and landscapes where both programmatic and symbolic points of difference and commonality are expressed."
I found this reading particularly interesting because it made me think about architecture in a way that i had not thought of before. Often times, its easy to think of buildings as being separate from everyday routines, as people end up inhabiting them at many points during the day. But after reading Margaret Crawford's article Everyday Urbanism, I cant help but think the opposite. As architects, are we not definers of space. I used the word define instead of create here because I think architects use buildings as a way of defining a space that already exists, giving it parameters that allow users to do a variety of things. Architecture, in a way, can become an extension to peoples daily routines, establishing a "collection" of diverse opportunities for cities.
Buildings, or landscapes
that separate themselves from this "collection" of spaces create opportunities for disconnection. While they may provide a present need for housing, or space for offices, they fail to add something to the existing fabric or locale of the city. This is something we are currently thinking about with our project in Anderson. How can a high school in Downtown Anderson be a continuation of someones daily routine? While I have yet to figure this out for myself, I think it is interesting to look at buildings and cities as a network of spaces, ones that add to the routines of everyday life.
"The present city must be defined as a place of continuous creation."
"To construct a communicating city means to provide spaces within buildings and landscapes where both programmatic and symbolic points of difference and commonality are expressed."
I found this reading particularly interesting because it made me think about architecture in a way that i had not thought of before. Often times, its easy to think of buildings as being separate from everyday routines, as people end up inhabiting them at many points during the day. But after reading Margaret Crawford's article Everyday Urbanism, I cant help but think the opposite. As architects, are we not definers of space. I used the word define instead of create here because I think architects use buildings as a way of defining a space that already exists, giving it parameters that allow users to do a variety of things. Architecture, in a way, can become an extension to peoples daily routines, establishing a "collection" of diverse opportunities for cities.
Buildings, or landscapes
that separate themselves from this "collection" of spaces create opportunities for disconnection. While they may provide a present need for housing, or space for offices, they fail to add something to the existing fabric or locale of the city. This is something we are currently thinking about with our project in Anderson. How can a high school in Downtown Anderson be a continuation of someones daily routine? While I have yet to figure this out for myself, I think it is interesting to look at buildings and cities as a network of spaces, ones that add to the routines of everyday life.
Comments
Post a Comment